LBC BW Legal/Britannia Parking

AnotherVoice

ok thank you for clarification, revised defence.

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant asserts this claim is premature and in breach of the GDPR by unreasonably and unfairly processing data for a claim, before the Claimant has supplied the SAR data and information requested in good faith by the Defendant.

3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant has no memory of visiting the car park in question on the date in 2016, nor does the defendant admit they failed to make a valid payment. The defendant has visited the car park in question multiple times, in order to go the one of the two restaurants on the site.
The car park layout is such that the bays directly behind the restaurant contain no signage from the claimant and appear to be for the use of restaurant patrons.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue the alleged debt, the defendant denies any interest is owing to the claimant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper No NTK was ever received by the Defendant, meaning the Defendant had no way of appealing to the land owner to have the PCN cancelled.

7. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, the sum claimed is vastly inflated due to the addition of unspecified charges which the defendant asserts is a gross abuse of process and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

AnotherVoice

SAR response was expected yesterday, not received from either Britannia or BWL.
I expect it will come through in a day or two dated within the 30 day deadline, but just posting to keep you updated.

AnotherVoice

Just found out that BWL did a credit check on me as well, i dont think i consented to that..

KeithP

AnotherVoice wrote: »

Just found out that BWL did a credit check on me as well, i dont think i consented to that..

That's ok. You don't need to consent to a soft check.

It was just to confirm an address.

Coupon-mad

Given the advice already given to you, telling you that Britannia didn't use POFA wording in 2016, why haven't you said:

The Defendant is unable to admit or deny being the driver, due to the years that have passed and a complete lack of evidence to support any cause of action against a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of who was driving on the material date, given that they can only pursue a known driver because the Claimant chose not to use any of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 'the POFA' (Schedule 4 paragraph 9) mandatory wording on their Notice to Keepers in 2016. There can be no keeper liability outwith the POFA.

AnotherVoice

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Given the advice already given to you, telling you that Britannia didn't use POFA wording in 2016, why haven't you said:

The Defendant is unable to admit or deny being the driver, due to the years that have passed and a complete lack of evidence to support any cause of action against a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of who was driving on the material date, given that they can only pursue a known driver because the Claimant chose not to use any of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 'the POFA' (Schedule 4 paragraph 9) mandatory wording on their Notice to Keepers in 2016. There can be no keeper liability outwith the POFA.

Should i put this in, in place of my #3 and #5?

Got my laughable SAR back from Britiannia today. It cannot possibly be all the information they hold on me. I need to read their PCN to see what it says.

I say laughable, one page of A4 is two massivley enlarged unreadable pixelated number plates.

Coupon-mad

Add it, in addition to the points you had.

nosferatu1001

So no copy of the ntk etc?
Wow
Clearly they've missed data you know they have,,meaning they've breached the dpa2018. Ico complaint time.

AnotherVoice

Well i would assume they have the data on me the DVLA sent them, i assume they used my personal info to contact BWL, just off the top of my head.

AnotherVoice

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny being the driver, due to the years that have passed and a complete lack of evidence to support any cause of action against a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of who was driving on the material date, given that they can only pursue a known driver because the Claimant chose not to use any of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 'the POFA' (Schedule 4 paragraph 9) mandatory wording on their Notice to Keepers in 2016. There can be no keeper liability outwith the POFA.
2. The Defendant asserts this claim is premature and in breach of the GDPR by unreasonably and unfairly processing data for a claim, before the Claimant has supplied the SAR data and information requested in good faith by the Defendant, in addition it is extremely unreasonable for the claimant to store DVLA data for several years then serve a claim with no due diligence nor evidence.
3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant has no memory of visiting the car park in question on the date in 2016, nor does the defendant admit they failed to make a valid payment. The defendant has visited the car park in question multiple times, visiting one of the two restaurants on the site. The car park layout is such that the bays directly behind the restaurants contain no signage from the claimant and appear to be for the use of restaurant customers.
4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue the alleged debt, the defendant denies any interest is owing to the claimant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK).
6a. No NTK was ever received by the Defendant, meaning the Defendant was unaware of the charge and had no way of appealing the charge.
7. The Claimant’s solicitors BW Legal are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. The defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the defendant’s significant detriment.
8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, the sum claimed is vastly inflated due to the addition of unspecified charges which the defendant asserts is a gross abuse of process and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.